Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Evaluating qualitative assays using sensitivity and specificity.

Bob Zhong1

  • 1Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL 60064, USA. bob.zhong@abbott.com

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
|December 13, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

PIVOT-10: Phase II study of bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial cancer.

Future oncology (London, England)·2020
Same author

Erdafitinib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

The New England journal of medicine·2019
Same author

Multicenter Phase I Study of Erdafitinib (JNJ-42756493), Oral Pan-Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced or Refractory Solid Tumors.

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research·2019
Same author

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of JNJ-42756493, an Oral Pan-Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor, in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology·2015
Same author

A note on sequential monitoring of select-the-winner design.

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics·2015
Same author

Carlumab, an anti-C-C chemokine ligand 2 monoclonal antibody, in combination with four chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of patients with solid tumors: an open-label, multicenter phase 1b study.

Targeted oncology·2014

This study introduces two novel methods for estimating assay sensitivity and specificity without a gold standard test, improving accuracy in performance evaluations. New criteria also standardize blood assay evaluations for better reliability.

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Diagnostics
  • Assay Development

Background:

  • Assay performance is typically measured by sensitivity and specificity, requiring a gold standard test for evaluation.
  • Gold standard tests are not always feasible due to cost or subject welfare concerns.
  • Current methods for estimating sensitivity and specificity in the absence of a gold standard can lead to overestimations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose two alternative statistical methods for estimating sensitivity and specificity of qualitative assays.
  • To introduce new acceptance criteria and objective standards for evaluating blood-related assays, including storage and interfering substance studies.
  • To address the subjective determination of target-spiking ranges and sample sizes in blood assay validation.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Development and simulation of two novel statistical approaches for sensitivity and specificity estimation.
  • Establishment of new acceptance criteria for blood assay evaluation, considering various conditions.
  • Introduction of objective standards for determining target-spiking ranges and sample sizes in blood assay studies.

Main Results:

  • Simulation results indicate that the proposed methods outperform existing approaches in estimating sensitivity and specificity.
  • The study provides a framework for more robust evaluation of qualitative assays, particularly for blood specimens.
  • New objective standards offer a more reliable basis for selecting spiking ranges and sample sizes.

Conclusions:

  • The proposed methods offer a more accurate alternative for estimating assay sensitivity and specificity when a gold standard is unavailable.
  • The new criteria and objective standards enhance the rigor and reliability of blood assay evaluations.
  • This work contributes to improved assay validation and performance assessment in diagnostic settings.